On 6/18/20 7:15 PM, Chris Billington via arch-general wrote:
> I haven't seen this mentioned yet which makes me wonder if I've
> misunderstood, but isn't it already the case that bash runs in a
> posix-compatible mode if executed as /bin/sh?
>
> I remember a bug a while back [1] that broke graphic
I haven't seen this mentioned yet which makes me wonder if I've
misunderstood, but isn't it already the case that bash runs in a
posix-compatible mode if executed as /bin/sh?
I remember a bug a while back [1] that broke graphical login because
flatpak used a bashism in an X startup script. Does th
On 19/06/2020 00.18, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
>
> I've provided rationale why I don't believe it will break much, you
> *agree* with me, and yet you say my arguments don't hold water?
>
Heh, I'm too tired to get into a detailed debate, but it's very possible
to be right for the wrong
On 6/18/20 6:06 PM, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> On 18/06/2020 18.22, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
>>> And nearly everybody who has to write this quickly will do it wrong.
>>
>> And yet, some do not. Some write elegant, simple POSIX sh scripts which
>> do it right. For example, people often fo
On 6/18/20 6:00 PM, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> On 18/06/2020 06.33, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
>> You pulled this assertion out of thin air, do you have any proof that it
>> "breaks more than a decade of setups"?
>
> OP is the one making an assertion, so the burden of proof is on them.
>
On 6/17/20 3:54 PM, Kusoneko wrote:
> It has the cost that everyone who uses scripts that use bashisms will
> inevitably have issues, furthermore, considering Arch only supports
> x86_64, I've yet to see systems under that architecture have low
> amounts of memory and 6MB of disk storage is incredi
On 17/06/2020 22:54, Kusoneko wrote:
> It has the cost that everyone who uses scripts that use bashisms will
> inevitably have issues,
Anybody who is using Bash features with /bin/sh shebang is wrong anyway.
Want Bash features? Use #!/bin/bash
Want simpler POSIX-compatible shell that is also fast
On June 17, 2020 7:35:27 PM UTC, Eli Schwartz via arch-general
wrote:
>On 6/17/20 3:18 PM, Kusoneko wrote:
>> On June 17, 2020 7:06:01 PM UTC, "Jack L. Frost"
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 07:18:33PM +0100, Piscium via arch-general
>>> wrote:
What do you think?
>>>
>>> I'm not sur
On 6/17/20 3:18 PM, Kusoneko wrote:
> On June 17, 2020 7:06:01 PM UTC, "Jack L. Frost"
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 07:18:33PM +0100, Piscium via arch-general
>> wrote:
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> I'm not sure how much utility is in doing this
>
> Pretty much this, to be honest. I don't
On 6/17/20 3:05 PM, NTS wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2020 8:36 p.m., "David Rosenstrauch" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/17/20 2:18 PM, Piscium via arch-general wrote:
>
>> Today I set dash as my default shell [1] on two PCs. We will see if I
>> get into trouble.
>>
>> This question was asked years ago but maybe g
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 19:39, Eli Schwartz via arch-general
wrote:
>
> On 6/17/20 2:36 PM, David Rosenstrauch wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 6/17/20 2:18 PM, Piscium via arch-general wrote:
> >> Today I set dash as my default shell [1] on two PCs. We will see if I
> >> get into trouble.
> >>
> >> This ques
On 6/17/20 2:36 PM, David Rosenstrauch wrote:
>
>
> On 6/17/20 2:18 PM, Piscium via arch-general wrote:
>> Today I set dash as my default shell [1] on two PCs. We will see if I
>> get into trouble.
>>
>> This question was asked years ago but maybe good to ask again. Could
>> dash be made the defa
12 matches
Mail list logo
